Bill Summary for Bill Number HB10-1201

Date: 03/22/2010

Final
BILL SUMMARY for HB10-1201

SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Votes: View-->	Action Taken:
Adopt an amendment to the reengrossed bill: page 3 Adopt prepared Amendment L.010 (Attachment C). Th Refer House Bill 10-1201, as amended, to the Commi	Pass Without Objection Pass Without Objection PASS

02:03 PM -- House Bill 10-1201

Senator Steadman, sponsor, presented House Bill 10-1201. The reengrossed bill requires a law enforcement officer intending to perform a consensual search of a person, the person's effects, or a car, to articulate the factors related to the search to the person and to obtain the person's consent to the search. If a defendant is searched in violation of this act and moves to suppress the evidence obtained in that search, the court must consider the failure to comply with the statute in determining the voluntariness of the consent. The consent requirement only applies to searches for which there is no other legal basis. Senator Steadman explained the bill.

The following individuals testified regarding the bill:

02:08 PM -- Mr. Miguel Lopez, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. He spoke about his experiences as a politically active, Chicano, and openly gay individual. He spoke about instances in which he believes that he was racially profiled by members of law enforcement. He stated that people need to be informed of their rights. Mr. Lopez responded to questions from the committee concerning his experiences as a community organizer and his experiences interacting with members of law enforcement. Senator King asked Senator Steadman for further clarification on the provisions of the bill concerning traffic stops and searches of vehicles. Committee discussion ensued, with Mr. Lopez providing additional details of his experiences with law enforcement.

02:17 PM -- Mr. Art Way, representing the Colorado Progressive Coalition, testified in support of the bill. He said that the bill would provide an ounce of regulation in order to gain pounds of clarity. He described the benefits provided by the bill. He spoke about past legislation concerning racial disparities in criminal investigations. Mr. Way said that many individuals do not feel comfortable refusing a request for a search, and may not realize that giving consent for a search will result in the relinquishment of their Fourth Amendment rights. He spoke about the percentage of consent searches that reveal evidence of criminal activity. He provided further statistics on this subject. Mr. Way said that the proponents of the bill are not attempting to make the jobs of peace officers more difficult. He concluded his remarks by saying that the bill would diminish the racial disparities in stop-and-search incidents, and would provide guidance for members of law enforcement regarding individual rights.

02:26 PM

In response to questions from Senator Hudak, Mr. Way provided details on his use of the term "Terry stop," which refers to an officer's authority to do a limited search for weapons based on a reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed and dangerous. Senator Steadman shared additional remarks on the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, which gave rise to the term "Terry stop." Senator King asked for further detail concerning the notification required by the bill. Committee discussion ensued, with Mr. Way sharing additional remarks.

02:31 PM -- Mr. Joseph Salazar, representing the Colorado Latino Forum, testified in support of the bill. He stated that law enforcement should be required to inform individuals of their rights concerning searches. He spoke about litigation related to alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Salazar provided details of his experience as a civil rights investigator for the Colorado Civil Rights Division. He said that he was stopped 12 times driving back and forth between Denver and Greeley. He spoke about a specific encounter with a State Trooper who he says attempted to search his car without probable cause. Mr. Salazar spoke about a Civil Rights Commission hearing that discussed perceived violations of Fourth Amendment rights by law enforcement agents. He addressed potential arguments from the bill's opponents. He then turned to a discussion of different levels of immunity for different types of peace officers.

02:39 PM -- Ms. Crystal Middlestadt, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. She shared a personal anecdote about her experience being pulled over for a traffic stop. She said that the experience led her to believe that law enforcement officers can easily abuse their powers and deny individuals the opportunity to invoke their rights. She said that the passage of the bill would strengthen Fourth Amendment rights. Ms. Middlestadt responded to questions from the committee.

02:43 PM -- Professor Lisa Calderon, representing herself and the Colorado Progressive Coalition, testified in support of the bill. She spoke about the experiences of her son, who has been stopped by law enforcement numerous times for what she believes are not valid reasons. She described the financial harm her family has experienced due to her son's trials. She also described her family's reduced quality of life, which is caused by the fear of further encounters with law enforcement. Professor Calderon said that experiences such as her son's lead individuals to trust law enforcement less. Professor Calderon responded to questions from Senator Lundberg regarding Fourth Amendment rights. Professor Calderon responded to further questions from the committee.

02:50 PM -- Reverend Patrick Demmer, representing the Grand Memorial Community Church of God and Christ and the Colorado Progressive Coalition, testified in support of the bill. Reverend Demmer described his own experiences being stopped by members of law enforcement. He concluded his remarks by saying that anything that can be done to ensure that individuals being pulled over are treated with a sense of respect and dignity is important.

02:54 PM -- Ms. Maureen Cain, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, testified in support of the bill. She described the provisions of the bill. She said that the language in the police officers' best practices manual was the language that was originally used in the bill. Ms. Cain responded to questions from Senator Renfroe concerning whether individuals would be intimidated by officers telling them that they have the right to refuse a search. Discussion continued between Senator Renfroe and Ms. Cain. Senator Lundberg asked for Ms. Cain's definition of "probable cause" under the Fourth Amendment. Committee discussion on this topic continued. Senator Steadman shared additional comments concerning a conversation he had with Senator Morse on the subject of police officer practices.

03:04 PM -- Mr. Doug Wilson, the Colorado State Public Defender, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Wilson stated that the bill is about educating citizens about their rights. He responded to questions from Senator King, with Senator Steadman sharing additional remarks. Discussion continued between Senator King and Mr. Wilson concerning which offenses are considered offenses worthy of arrest. Senator Renfroe asked for further clarification on the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. Senator Lundberg described his concerns with the bill. Mr. Wilson spoke about case law regarding Fourth Amendment rights. He responded to follow-up questions from Senator Carroll.

03:21 PM -- Mr. Carlos Valverde, representing himself and the Colorado Progressive Coalition, testified in support of the bill. He spoke about his family's experiences and his personal experiences with law enforcement. Mr. Valverde described a specific incident when an officer pulled him over and asked to search his car and his trunk. He spoke about the actions of the officer that he believes were racially motivated. He said that the incident was a violation of his rights and was also a waste of taxpayer money and his own time. He said that if the officer had notified him that he had a right to say no to the search, the event might not have occurred.

03:28 PM -- Mr. Harry Smith, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. He spoke about his personal experiences being stopped by law enforcement for what he believes were racially motivated reasons. He described a specific incident in which he was beaten and abused by officers. He spoke about the financial hardships that have resulted from his experiences with law enforcement. Mr. Smith said that the bill would help prevent further abuses by law enforcement.

03:38 PM -- Mr. Richard Leo Refuerzo, representing CopWatch, testified in support of the bill. He spoke about his personal experiences being stopped by law enforcement for what he believes were racially motivated reasons. He said that he had been threatened with jail time for not giving consent for a search. He stated that individuals are afraid to refuse a request to search.

03:43 PM -- Ms. Annmarie Jensen, representing the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, testified on the bill from a neutral position. She spoke about case law related to Fourth Amendment rights. She said that the bill already represents the best practices of police departments. She addressed an amendment that would be offered.

03:45 PM -- Mr. Mark Randall, representing the Colorado District Attorneys' Council, testified in opposition to the bill. He discussed the changes that have been made to the bill. He stated that the courts decide the parameters of Fourth Amendment rights. According to Mr. Randall, the courts have said that there is no requirement and that there should be no requirement that an individual be informed of his or her right to refuse a search. He expressed his concerns that evidence that would otherwise be admissible in a court would no longer be admissible under the provisions of the bill. Mr. Randall said that consent searches lead to the discovery of important evidence, and are well-recognized exceptions to warrant rules. He spoke about the standards that prosecutors must follow to prove that consent for a search was given voluntarily. He explained all of the factors that a judge takes into consideration when determining whether consent was freely and voluntarily given. Mr. Randall described specific concerns with the language on page 3 of the reengrossed bill, lines 3 through 6. He said that the language may lead the court to give more weight to the issue of consent, rather than taking that issue into consideration together with the totality of all factors. He spoke about the possibility that the bill would lead to an increase in litigation.

03:53 PM

Mr. Randall continued discussing his concerns with specific language in the bill. He then turned to a discussion of "implied consent," an example of which occurs when a police officer asks if he or she may enter a home and the homeowner motions him or her in, without giving verbal or written consent. He spoke about this concept in relation to the language of the bill. He reiterated that the bill has gotten closer to current case law, but will still create litigation. Senator King asked for clarification regarding whether a search warrant is required in order to search a home. Senator Newell asked for information concerning other states' laws on this issue. Senator Lundberg asked for further clarification on Mr. Randall's testimony. Senator Lundberg expressed his belief that the legislature and the judicial branch both have a responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Randall responded to Senator Lundberg's remarks and continued to explain his concerns with the bill.

04:04 PM

Committee discussion continued. Senator Carroll spoke about her concerns with the arguments made in opposition to the bill. She asked if the opponents' arguments imply that searches that are currently happening would not continue if consent notification were required. Mr. Randall responded to her comments, stating that many people would still consent to searches if given a consent notification. Discussion continued between Senator Carroll and Mr. Randall. Senator Steadman spoke about an amendment that he would offer that would address some of the points that Mr. Randall raised. Senator Steadman addressed the claim that the bill would lead to more litigation. Mr. Randall shared additional remarks on the topic. He expressed the concern that the bill would result in unintended consequences.

04:13 PM

Senator King asked for Mr. Randall's opinion concerning whether the bill would affect rates of racial profiling. Senator Hudak shared additional comments concerning the role of the court in this issue. Discussion continued between Senator Hudak and Mr. Randall. Senator Carroll shared additional remarks. Senator Newell asked if Senator Steadman had explored the "implied consent" issue during his negotiations concerning the bill. Senator Steadman replied that the bill attempts to codify best practices.

04:24 PM -- Sheriff Doug Darr, representing the County Sheriffs of Colorado, testified in opposition to the bill. He emphasized that illegal racial profiling is wrong. He said that it is the officer's responsibility to ensure that it is clear that factors such as race and sexual orientation are not the motivation for a search. Sheriff Darr discussed discrepancies between information delivered by previous witnesses and information in case files. He said that in an ideal situation, written consent would be obtained prior to every search, but incidents often move very quickly. Sheriff Darr stressed that officers should not be put in a position of risk in order to get consent for a search. He responded to questions from the committee. Sheriff Darr stated that his intent is to raise awareness of the quick time frames under which law enforcement offices are operating.

04:34 PM

Senator Steadman distributed and explained prepared Amendment L.010 (Attachment C).


BILL:	HB10-1201
TIME:	04:36:22 PM
MOVED:	Steadman
MOTION:	Adopt prepared Amendment L.010 (Attachment C). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:
		VOTE
	Hudak
	King K.
	Lundberg
	Newell
	Renfroe
	Steadman
	Carroll M.

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB10-1201
TIME:	04:40:03 PM
MOVED:	Steadman
MOTION:	Adopt an amendment to the reengrossed bill: page 3, line 10, strike "BASIS." and substitute "BASIS OTHER THAN VOLUNTARY CONSENT.". The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:
		VOTE
	Hudak
	King K.
	Lundberg
	Newell
	Renfroe
	Steadman
	Carroll M.

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB10-1201
TIME:	04:41:33 PM
MOVED:	Steadman
MOTION:	Refer House Bill 10-1201, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed on a 7-0 roll call vote.
SECONDED:
		VOTE
	Hudak	Yes
	King K.	Yes
	Lundberg	Yes
	Newell	Yes
	Renfroe	Yes
	Steadman	Yes
	Carroll M.	Yes

Final YES: 7 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS